Skip to main content

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Carbon Dioxide

When I was a young child, I remember speculating with my school classmates about how close a nuclear bomb blast might occur if there were all-out nuclear war with the Soviet Union. I grew up about 25 miles from Sheppard Air Force Base, which we all assumed was a potential target of the Soviets. It was an odd, concerning feeling deep in the gut, to contemplate the possibility of suffering radiation poisoning and the end of the world. I wouldn’t wish that feeling on anyone, certainly not little kids, that gnawing deep-down fear that occasionally welled up depending on the news.

That’s partly why the fear-mongering over global warming is more than just an aggravation to me. It makes me angry that propagandists like Al Gore have so frightened kids about the future that one has turned herself into an advertisement for depression treatment and anger management. I am especially angry because the truth about climate and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the opposite of what the mainstream news doses us with on a daily basis. The news is actually good.

At the current 400 parts per million (400 millionths of a unit), CO2 makes up a tiny fraction of our atmosphere. In percentage terms, it is 0.04% of all the gas in the earth’s atmosphere. It turns out that plants essentially suffocate when CO2 falls below 0.015% of our atmosphere (150 parts per million), and if plants suffocate, we all know from the food chain that all terrestrial animal life, including humans, goes extinct.

During the last glaciation (the entire epoch in which we live, the Holocene, is technically an ice age), CO2 fell to a mere 180 parts per million (0.018%) as cold ocean water absorbed the life-giving gas. That means the earth came within 3/1000s of one percent of the atmosphere (far less than a hair’s breadth, figuratively speaking) of seeing the extinction of all plant and animal life on earth’s surface. By 1800, just before the industrial revolution, CO2 had recovered (outgassing from the ocean, like heating a cold Dr. Pepper and causing it to go flat) by a mere 1/100s of one percent to 280 parts per million (0.028%) of the atmosphere.

Had glaciation returned with CO2 at its pre-industrial level, there is no guarantee terrestrial plant and animal life would have survived, because life sequesters (stores) CO2. Life has stored billions of tons of CO2 as limestone (sea shells), shale, petroleum, and coal. Mankind is the only species to have found methods and uses for releasing long-trapped, life-giving CO2 back into the atmosphere, burning fossil fuels for energy and limestone for cement. As such, we are saving life on this planet, not destroying it.

And there is ample evidence that, in fact, the earth’s plant life has benefitted from more CO2 in the atmosphere. But get this, we don’t even know if we (mankind) can take all the credit, because in 1800 the earth was in the midst of what has been called the Little Ice Age, a centuries long cool period from which the earth has been naturally warming ever since. And as long as the earth is warming, the ocean out-gasses CO2.

For that matter, the earth’s climate changes for a variety of poorly-understood reasons. Among these are ocean cycles, volcanism, the earth’s orbit, and the interplay of sun activity, solar wind, cosmic rays, and cloud formation. Climate models – the global warming crowd’s only quasi-real evidence – build in what are now known to be exaggerated feedback effects in which tiny amounts of CO2 effectively cause tons of water vapor – by far, the dominant greenhouse gas – to be absorbed into the atmosphere. Those models, at best, only poorly account for cloud formation, something you’d expect from increased water vapor. They’ve proven poor predictors of earth’s climate.

So, while we humans can take some credit for greening the earth, most of the credit belongs to the earth itself, and the natural causes of earth’s warming and out-gassing of the oceans since the last glaciation. The likelihood, though, that we have had anything to do with the earth’s warming is remote, given that much higher concentrations of CO2 have coexisted with very cold periods in earth’s long history.

And so now I circle back to the charlatans pushing Climate Change Disaster. Are they really so ignorant as not to know these facts? Unlikely. One therefore has to wonder just what motivates them to push so very hard for policies that would force us to stop saving terrestrial life and compromise our own lives in the process.

All I can think is that it comes down to the ideology of wealth redistribution on a global scale and the idea that the rich only get that way by effectively stealing from others, so rich nations somehow owe it to the poor ones to impoverish themselves. Perhaps I’ll blog about that fallacy at some future date. Another issue, of course, is that our elected officials have become willing tools of crony capitalists, providing subsidies to the wind and solar generation industries.

Meanwhile, those of us who know better need to arm ourselves with the truth and push back. The fear mongers, greedy robbers of the public treasury, and social/climate “justice” ideologues are not going to stop. And the fact is, they are either very dedicated in their ignorance, or just plain liars.

Byron Schlomach is 1889 Institute Director but is not a climate scientist or geologist; nor did he stay in a Holiday Inn last night. But, he has read extensively on the climate for over 20 years. He recommends these additional resources to learn the truth about climate. He can be reached at:

Popular posts from this blog

Penmanship Fit for a King, Words Fit for a Free People

Penmanship Fit for a King, Words Fit for a Free People We all know that Thomas Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence, but who wrote the Declaration? Who took pen to paper—actually, quill to parchment—and inscribed the words on the document displayed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.? The name Timothy Matlack has largely been lost to history, but in addition to having exceptional penmanship, Matlack actually played a significant role in the events we celebrate on the Fourth of July. More importantly, the words Matlack transcribed set into motion a conception of government completely new in world history. While Matlack’s elegant calligraphy appears fit for a king, Jefferson’s elegant prose—directed at a king—had far more lasting consequences. So what of these consequential words? We’ve all read them at some point, or perhaps been required to memorize them in school. Was the Declaration just a flowery way of saying “no taxation without representati

A Simple Way to Improve Oklahoma’s Selection of Judges: Open Up the Process

The synod has finished its secret meetings and taken its vote behind closed doors. The public waits with bated breath (well, some of us) to get a glimpse at the new high priest who will don his formal vestments and take his seat at the commanding heights of doctrinal authority. Who will it be? Who will it be?! Then, as if delivered from the heavens, the names appear in a short announcement tucked in an obscure corner of the internet . WE HAVE CHOSEN. I am not describing the last papal conclave . I am describing Oklahoma’s unnecessarily mysterious process for selecting Supreme Court justices. All we are missing is the plume of white smoke. The nuances of the judicial selection methods employed by the 50 states are as varied as the cuisine. Some utilize elections, some gubernatorial appointments, some even have legislative appointments. We have commented on the relative strengths and weaknesses of these various methods, and will continue to do so, but some things are so f

What Do You Mean the Oklahoma Supreme Court Doesn’t Publish a Docket?

One of the most routine things any court does is to publish its “docket.” This public calendar announces the cases the court will hear and when they will be heard. The docket doesn’t just keep the court on schedule and notify the parties in litigation when to show up for court, it puts the public on notice as to what is going on in the legal system. This allows for a very basic level of public monitoring of what is (mostly) supposed to be a public process, and at the appellate level allows anyone who may have a personal or business interest in the interpretations of law the court is considering to follow, or sometimes influence the process. Court dockets are routinely published all across the United States and at every level, from the lowest traffic court to the United States Supreme Court. But, incredibly, not at the Oklahoma Supreme Court. No, really. Earlier this year I called the office of the Clerk of the Oklahoma Supreme Court and asked for a copy of the Court’s dock

Lack of Transparency by the Oklahoma Supreme Court Continues to Amaze

Squirrels hide acorns for the winter by burying them in the dirt. It is somewhat amusing to watch squirrels in Florida engage in this little ritual, since they live in a place where there is no winter coming. It’s just what squirrels do. They are programmed to hide their nuts. The Oklahoma Supreme Court seems to have a similar modus operandi: the Court’s default is to hide its actions from public view, even when there is no reason to. Allow me to explain. The Court recently heard a legal challenge to an initiative petition that seeks to change how Oklahoma draws its legislative and congressional districts (spoiler alert for a future post: the redistricting initiative is a terrible idea). The Court scheduled the case for oral argument on January 21 of this year in the ceremonial courtroom in the State Capitol building.   This may sound routine, but for the Oklahoma Supreme Court, it is notable. Unlike most appellate courts in the country, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ve